Physics Programs in Secondary Education from the Establishment of the Republic of Turkey to Present Day
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Program development’ is a systematic process which includes steps such as determining general and specific goals ofteaching, choosing appropriate program materials, determining teaching methods, evaluation and assessment tools,designing formal outlines for every lesson, testing and finalizing the program, continual monitoring, evaluatingprogram, and lastly enhancing program. This study examines contents of Physics lessons in Turkey and what kind ofchanges has been made to the program throughout years. It also gives information concerning historical developmentof this process since1924, in which the law of Tevhid-i Tedrisad was passed, to present day. Any new program isinitially practiced at pilot schools and then extended to other schools in the country, which seems in accordance withthe principles of the program development process. However, these programs have been practiced for only one or twoyears at pilot schools, then directly extended to local schools throughout the country without making any necessaryimprovements or enhancements to the program. This practice, as the study findings suggest, creates a vicious cycle.When deficiencies in past programs became obvious even at other schools, the authorities immediately attempted todevelop a completely new program, which was again applied and abolished using same procedures. This is a primereason for why goals for education cannot be short-term. Additionally, study findings showed that experts who designPhysics programs in Turkey do not complete detailed unit analysis of Physics lessons, which in turn causes Physicsteachers at schools to face problems when planning effective lessons and setting goals for class.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".